Contrasting themes in the semantics of imperative concurrency

Bakker, J. W. de; Kok, Joost N.; Meyer, John-Jules; Olderog, Ernst-Rüdiger; Zucker, Jeffery I.

doi:10.1007/bfb0027040

Cited by 29 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 42 publications

(10 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We expect it to be possible to relate the denotationM semantics defined in [26,27] to a denotational model based on the denotational model presented in this paper following the lines of [6]. We have the strong feeling that it is possible to extend the language with communication and global non-determinism [5] and to define a branching time model [3] for this language. Enriching the language with delays [24,27] and a parameter mechanism provided to procedure variables causes no serious problems.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparative semantics for a real-time programming language with integration

Breugel

1991

Tapsoft '91

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An operational and a denotational semantic model are presented for a real-time programming language incorporating the concept of integration. Integration enables us to specify a restricted form of unbounded non-determinism. For example, the execution of an action at an arbitrary moment in a time interval can be specified using the concept of integration. The operational and the denotational model are proved to be equivalent using a general method based on higher-order transformations and complete metric spaces. Banach~s fixed point theorem, which states that a contraction on a complete metric space has a unique fixed point, will be used to define and to compare semantic models. Also Michael's theorem, which roughly states that a compact union of compact sets is compact, will be used for the definition of semantic models. I n t r o d u c t i o nI~eal-time programming can be viewed as traditional concurrency supplied with timing constraints [81]. Because these timing constraints cause more complexity, the advantages of high-level languages are even greater in real-time programming than in concurrency and sequential programming. Several languages, like RTL [22], have been designed specifically for real-time programming. Other languages are extensions of already existing languages, for example, the language TCSP [14] is an extension of the language CSP [21]. In real-time programming the correctness of a program depends not only on the flow of control. The program should also meet its timing constraints [30]. Therefore new semantic models should be developed. Several models both operational [2,16,19] and denotational [15,24,27] have already been provided.In this paper a simple real-time programming language is studied. Apart from the traditional programming constructs, this language incorporates timed atomic actions and integration. Timed atomic actions are atomic actions each provided with some timing information. This timing information denotes when the atomic action should be executed. The concept of integration has been introduced in [2]. A statement is integrated over a time set, which is a subset of the time domain, i.e. a non-deterministically chosen value from the time set is passed to the statement. Integration enables us to specify the execution of an action at an arbitrary moment in a time interval, for example, fte [1.o3, 2.tq (a,t)

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…The language is uniform, i.e. the elementary actions are left atomic [5]. The language is built from atomic actions provided with some timing information~ sequential composition, non-deterministic choice, parallel composition, so-called integration and recursion.…”

Section: Language Definitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative semantics for a real-time programming language with integration

Breugel

1991

Tapsoft '91

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…and .2US' We apply the technique of transition systems, introduced by Hennessy and Plotkin [29,38,39], and proven to be quite fruitful in a variety of concurrency semantics. The particular version employed below is close to the style of definition in [9,10], though these papers deal in fact with interpreted rather than with uninterpreted languages ( cf., for example, the discussion in [12] of the distinction between uniform and nonuniform). In [16] we also discuss the relationships between our version of the transition formalism and other variants one may encounter in the literature.…”

Section: Operational Semanticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(1) A denotational semantics based on a cpo structure on (certain) sets of streams equipped with the Smyth order [12,14,33,34]. (2) A denotational semantics based on a cpo structure on (certain) sets of so-called finite observations equipped with the order of reverse set inclusion [12,14].…”

Section: Equivalence Of Operational and Denotational Semanticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Designing equivalent semantic models for process creation

America

Bakker²

1987

Mathematical Models for the Semantics of Parallelism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Operational and denotational semantic models are designed for languages with process creation, and the relationships between the two semantics are investigated. The presentation is organized in four sections dealing with a uniform and static, a uniform and dynamic, a non uniform and static, and a nonuniform and dynamic language respectively. Here uniform/nonuniform refers to a language with uninterpreted/interpreted elementary actions, and static/dynamic to the distinction between languages with a fixed/ growing number of parallel processes. The contrast between uniform and nonuniform is reflected in the use of linear time versus branching time models, the latter employing a version of Plotkin's resumptions. The operational semantics make use of Hennessy's and Plotkin's transition systems. All models are built on metric structures, and involve continuations in an essential way. The languages studied are abstractions of the parallel object-oriented language POOL for which we have designed separate operational and denotational semantics in earlier work. The paper provides a full analysis of the relationship between the two semantics for these abstractions. Technically, a key role is played by a new operator which is able to decide dynamically whether it should act as sequential or parallel composition.

show abstract